Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I hope you're right, but that assumes that wider valleys are one of the Province's objectives. I'm not convinced that's the case.

That just cements the perception that opinions of Calgarians are being overruled by provincial politicians and engineers. I'm all for the ring road, but I'm also against needless destruction of the Weaselhead and Fish Creek. Preserving the valley bottoms is important to me. If that's not important to the province, then they have lost my support.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I am talking about from the provincial budget perspective. Not building this does not create a pot of money to spend more on other things. It changes the province financial picture, but not enough to be a game changer. Ring road versus no ring road does not weigh on how big 'son of MSI' will be in my mind.

Ah I understand. MT I like your knowledge of provincial finance/funding systems, it does provide some good insight into the background behind these kind of projects I didn't know.

If all what you said is true (and I do not doubt that it is), this project is just straight and simply waste of money then.

The breakdown here is that the Province assumes that they "need" this project. No matter what.

Even if this project is delivered on-time, on budget and all your financial assumption hold true and all the Province's worst-case traffic assumptions hold true for 50 years, it is still a waste. There is nothing I have ever seen or heard on the demand this is trying to satisfy in the Government's own numbers that would require a build-out like this. Forget saving the room for another 8 lanes, the current 8 in the plan are way overkill for as long as their models go for.

Not to say there is not demand at all, but 8 lanes? 40+ grad-separations? diverting the Elbow River and destroying an inordinately enormous swath of Fish Creek / Weaselhead natural areas? Not even close.

If the land deal is done, good. Keep the land. We are only in the whole for ~500 million so far. If we ever need it we now have it. Build a mini-implementation of this. 4 lanes, no interchanges between Glenmore & 22x. Limited grade separation unless needed based on study, not because we "need" it.

Save that other $4 billion in debt for another day. Or expanding the road if we actually need to.

[MalcolmTucker]

I haven't read the agreement in detail, but there may be a minimum standard that the road needs to be built at, or else the province will not have the land or the money/land we transferred for the land. 5seconds?

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Ah I understand. MT I like your knowledge of provincial finance/funding systems, it does provide some good insight into the background behind these kind of projects I didn't know.

If all what you said is true (and I do not doubt that it is), this project is just a straight and simply waste of money then.

The breakdown here is that the Province assumes that they "need" this project. No matter what.

Even if this project is delivered on-time, on budget and all your financial assumption hold true and all the Province's worst-case traffic assumptions hold true for 50 years, it is still a waste. There is nothing I have ever seen or heard on the demand this is trying to satisfy in the Government's own numbers that would require a build-out like this. Forget saving the room for another 8 lanes, the current 8 in the plan are way overkill for as long as their models go for.

Not to say there is not demand at all, but 8 lanes? 40+ grad-separations? diverting the Elbow River and destroying an inordinately enormous swath of Fish Creek / Weaselhead natural areas? Not even close.

If the land deal is done, good. Keep the land. We are only in the whole for ~500 million so far. If we ever need it we now have it. Build a mini-implementation of this. 4 lanes, no interchanges between Glenmore & 22x. Limited grade separation unless needed based on study, not because we "need" it.

Save that other $4 billion in debt for another day. Or expanding the road if we actually need to.

I believe construction on the part through the reserve has to be started in the next two years, iirc. It was part of the deal that the government can’t just sit on it.

What they’ve done with the Weaseled in that video has a purpose. In that design they have intentionally created a dam for the purpose of flood control.

Edit: On second thought, I think it's more like 5 years, but I don't have the reference handy.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Ah I understand. MT I like your knowledge of provincial finance/funding systems, it does provide some good insight into the background behind these kind of projects I didn't know.

If all what you said is true (and I do not doubt that it is), this project is just a straight and simply waste of money then.

The breakdown here is that the Province assumes that they "need" this project. No matter what.

Even if this project is delivered on-time, on budget and all your financial assumption hold true and all the Province's worst-case traffic assumptions hold true for 50 years, it is still a waste. There is nothing I have ever seen or heard on the demand this is trying to satisfy in the Government's own numbers that would require a build-out like this. Forget saving the room for another 8 lanes, the current 8 in the plan are way overkill for as long as their models go for.

Not to say there is not demand at all, but 8 lanes? 40+ grad-separations? diverting the Elbow River and destroying an inordinately enormous swath of Fish Creek / Weaselhead natural areas? Not even close.

If the land deal is done, good. Keep the land. We are only in the whole for ~500 million so far. If we ever need it we now have it. Build a mini-implementation of this. 4 lanes, no interchanges between Glenmore & 22x. Limited grade separation unless needed based on study, not because we "need" it.

Save that other $4 billion in debt for another day. Or expanding the road if we actually need to.

Well said.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Off the top of my head, interchanges at Sarcee, 37th street, Westhills, Strathcona, 90th (plus Southland extension) and Anderson are all required. Possibly 130th. There is also language that specifies that the road would be built similar to the 'opening day' plan as presented in the agreement.

I would have to double check, but I am not sure if the number of lanes or if intersections being free-flow are mandated. I know that the Ultimate stage is not mandated.

EDIT: The number of lanes and the nature of the interchanges on the reserve lands are included in the Opening Day Plan, shown as a series of maps in the agreement. The definition of the Opening Day Plan reads: Opening Day Plan means a plan substantially the same as the plan attached as Schedule 3 which provides at least all of the traffic movements listed in Schedule 8. I am not a lawyer, but based on that, I looks like the number of lanes and free-flow interchanges do form a part of the agreement, though the word 'substantially' might give some leeway to altering the scope of the road somewhat? Is a 6 lane road substantially the same as an 8 lane road?

Could it not be designed such that at least the open space if on the sides of the roadway rather than down the middle? This would at least allow for some level of usage of the area rather than it becoming just another big mowing project.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is Weaselhead not only there because of another damaging infrastructure project (Glenmore Dam)?

That is my understanding. This 'natural' area was basically created by man less than 100 years ago.

.

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

This is the only reason why I can think of why they're planning to overbuilt the shit out of this road (based on the video) right now ... They want to make sure it can handle a heavy traffic load and a potential expansion in the very long term - I mean it took over 50 years just to get the Tsuu T'iina to agree to give this part of the land up .. I can't imagine how long it'd take to try and acquire more land cutting into the reserve for an additional highway (in the very long term)

Bingo. This is realistically the only shot the Province will get at doing a ring road on this side of Calgary. They not only have to get it right, they need to think long term and get it right then too. How often have we bitched at the City/Province/Feds underbuilding something only to come back in a few years (or decades) time and spend a huge amount of money and disruption to fix it. I'm on the side that says do it right the first time and plan way in advance. You might get away with not doing this on the other sections but not through the Reserve.

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Is there any possibility of cutting this thing by a billion or two and re-allocating that money to the NC/SE LRT?

Nope. It's not Calgary's money to choose and the Province is not goig to compromise the ring road for something else regardless of badly needed the LRT is (and I agree it is)

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Off the top of my head, interchanges at Sarcee, 37th street, Westhills, Strathcona, 90th (plus Southland extension) and Anderson are all required. Possibly 130th. There is also language that specifies that the road would be built similar to the 'opening day' plan as presented in the agreement.

I would have to double check, but I am not sure if the number of lanes or if intersections being free-flow are mandated. I know that the Ultimate stage is not mandated.

EDIT: The number of lanes and the nature of the interchanges on the reserve lands are included in the Opening Day Plan, shown as a series of maps in the agreement. The definition of the Opening Day Plan reads: Opening Day Plan means a plan substantially the same as the plan attached as Schedule 3 which provides at least all of the traffic movements listed in Schedule 8. I am not a lawyer, but based on that, I looks like the number of lanes and free-flow interchanges do form a part of the agreement, though the word 'substantially' might give some leeway to altering the scope of the road somewhat? Is a 6 lane road substantially the same as an 8 lane road?

Traffic movements and free-flow traffic movements are two separate things, but it sounds like the agreement basically binds the province to build this particular ridiculous design. Obviously part of the reason for this is that the Tsuu T'ina want to make sure that their lands are serviced by the road. But I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of the reason for the specifications in the agreement was the province's goal to prevent Calgarians from having any say in the road design; either the province's Robert Moses fantasy or no road at all ever.

I wouldn't be surprised if a slightly scaled down version of this road could be built for closer to $2B with all of the access and movements, but with some signals instead of interchanges, and the interchanges scaled down to meet reasonable urban traffic standards. It would still be the fastest road heading north-south west of the Deerfoot, would still provide for all of the mobility benefits, and would still permit the area south of the Tsuu T'ina to open for development. And the remaining money could get split amongst any number of projects that would provide increased mobility to the area served by the road (e.g. SW transitway, an east-west transitway into Providence when developed) as well as city-wide (potentially a combination of transit, road and active mode improvements).

[WaitWhat?]

I vote for building the SWRR (in a somewhat scaled down version of what we've seen), building the Green Line, 8th Ave subway and an increase in my taxes to pay for it all. We are not overly taxed in this province.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Bingo. This is realistically the only shot the Province will get at doing a ring road on this side of Calgary. They not only have to get it right, they need to think long term and get it right then too. How often have we bitched at the City/Province/Feds underbuilding something only to come back in a few years (or decades) time and spend a huge amount of money and disruption to fix it. I'm on the side that says do it right the first time and plan way in advance. You might get away with not doing this on the other sections but not through the Reserve.

If that's the case, you're probably also the type of person who buys their kid their first car on the day they are born; after all, cars keep increasing in price and it would be a hassle to buy it later -- never mind the costs of maintaining an excess asset, the opportunity costs for doing something else with that money in the meantime, and the fact that when the kid turns 16 they may not want a car or they may not want that car. Oh, wait, nobody's that stupid with their own money - only the public purse.

The important thing for this corridor and this agreement is to have enough right of way to allow for future expansion; I'm 100% behind the province on this. But just because we have a space to build a megahighway designed for a population of 3 million people doesn't mean we need to build that megahighway tomorrow.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Could it not be designed such that at least the open space if on the sides of the roadway rather than down the middle? This would at least allow for some level of usage of the area rather than it becoming just another big mowing project.

One of the general principles of the Tsuu Tina agreement is that land not used for roadwork is returned to the Nation.

Also imagine if the Deerfoot was built from the outside inward, we would not be having issues such as Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange. It is always easier to add an inside lane than to rebuild bridges to handle additional outside lanes.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

If that's the case, you're probably also the type of person who buys their kid their first car on the day they are born; after all, cars keep increasing in price and it would be a hassle to buy it later -- never mind the costs of maintaining an excess asset, the opportunity costs for doing something else with that money in the meantime, and the fact that when the kid turns 16 they may not want a car or they may not want that car. Oh, wait, nobody's that stupid with their own money - only the public purse.

The important thing for this corridor and this agreement is to have enough right of way to allow for future expansion; I'm 100% behind the province on this. But just because we have a space to build a megahighway designed for a population of 3 million people doesn't mean we need to build that megahighway tomorrow.

Strongly Agree. Good on the province to get the land while they could. Extremely bad on the province to get themselves attached to so many conditions to essentially force the building of this road in the most overbuilt way possible. If the Tsuu Tina wanted access to infrastructure networks they could have had them at any point in the last 50 years without this ridiculously expensive overkill of a project.

[MalcolmTucker]

When you add up the complexity of the works, and the number of lane kilometers, the predicted price tag isn't out of line with past phases given construction inflation.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

One of the general principles of the Tsuu Tina agreement is that land not used for roadwork is returned to the Nation.

Also imagine if the Deerfoot was built from the outside inward, we would not be having issues such as Deerfoot/Glenmore interchange. It is always easier to add an inside lane than to rebuild bridges to handle additional outside lanes.

Oh I would guess it's much easier to add lanes, but will we ever need 16 lanes? Does anyone have any research to back this requirement up?

IMO 8 lanes will be more than enough, given the reduction in distance driven and continuing rise in the cost of fuel, I would doubt that even 8 lanes will fill up and this is taking into account induced demand.

[MalcolmTucker]

The 16 lanes is to accommodate the second ring road within the same corridor.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Previous mayors have been less than welcoming of the Tsuu T'ina, and the extension of any city infrastructure to the reserve has been a contentious issue for years, so I disagree that this could have been done earlier (They tried!). Saying that, good interchanges on a 6-lane road with all of the same movements as agreed would serve reserve land the same as the current plan, so it could be possible to bilaterally alter the road plan without altering the basics that the Nation is relying on...

Hmm, I didn't know that. I figured that everyone was playing wait-and-see for the Ring road so were scared to commit to anything. I guess they never knew this would take 50 years so they held off of other improvements.

Similar to Vic Park in that regard I guess; the instability of the Stampede's plans and the lack of follow through resulted in the neighbourhood slowly being leveled and left in it's current state. Had the stampede and others involved been more aware of how long they would leave the area empty, they probably wouldn't have been so quick to tear it all down when they weren't ready to use it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The 16 lanes is to accommodate the second ring road within the same corridor.

And why would we need to build a second ring road? This is getting to Houston levels of stupidity.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by fusili

And why would we need to build a second ring road? This is getting to Houston levels of stupidity.

Exactly. Put the extra funds to widening existing corridors and transit. How many cities in NA have double ring roads and what are their populations? Even if some do, we don't need to go that route.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Exactly. Put the extra funds to widening existing corridors and transit. How many cities in NA have double ring roads and what are their populations? Even if some do, we don't need to go that route.

If you look at the ultimate stage plans the inner lanes, are to expedite travel though the middle of the corridor. There are only entrances and exits at the MAJOR systems interchanges. So that City and through traffic can co-existing in the same corridor with less interference, and leads to safer exiting / entering of the freeway.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Exactly. Put the extra funds to widening existing corridors and transit. How many cities in NA have double ring roads and what are their populations? Even if some do, we don't need to go that route.

To be honest, most of us will be dead before the second ring road gets going in earnest.